How far can government authorities go in tackling radicalisation among young people?
Tackling radicalisation among young people is a complex issue in which government authorities may choose to apply legal measures. PhD candidate Nina van Capelleveen examined the risks such legal instruments can pose to the fundamental rights of minors.
Nina van Capelleveen's research looks at how to strike a balance between ensuring public safety, protecting the development of young people and their fundamental rights while tackling radicalisation. In her PhD thesis, Radicalisering bij minderjarigen en overheidsingrijpen, on radicalisation among young people and government intervention, Van Capelleveen stresses the need for legal safeguards such as verifiable decision-making, judicial review and attention for the specific interests of young people in order to prevent unlawful government intervention. Her recommendations include a youth-specific approach, more clarity and uniformity when defining the concept of radicalisation and strengthening the legal protection of minors.
How far can government authorities go?
Van Capelleveen examined how the law can be applied in response to signs of radicalisation, particularly within juvenile criminal law, administrative law and youth protection law. To gain a clear picture of the current government response, she interviewed professionals who deal with radicalisation in practice. This included employees working for the police, municipalities, the Public Prosecution Service, the NCTV (the principal Dutch counterterrorism unit) and the Child Care and Protection Board. She also studied laws, regulations and policies related to the approach to radicalisation in the Netherlands.
The key question is how far government authorities may go according to international children’s rights and international human rights in order to safeguard national security as well as the protection of the development of minors in the case of radicalisation. It is essential that there are clear safeguards in place, such as verifiable decision-making, judicial review and attention for the specific interests of minors in order to protect these rights and to prevent unlawful government intervention.
Instruments to prevent radicalisation
In her PhD thesis, Van Capelleveen demonstrates that the legal instruments used in the Netherlands to tackle radicalisation have been extended in recent years, particularly in response to jihadist radicalisation. As a result, government authorities can now intervene sooner following signs of radicalisation.
Possible legal instruments are:
- Child protection measures and placement of a minor in secure youth care under child protection law.
- Prohibitions and injunctions under criminal law, such as an order prohibiting contact, a reporting obligation, a ban on the use of social media, or being required to have conversations with an expert on religious beliefs.
- Measures under administrative law, including an exclusion order, a travel ban or an intervention affecting a passport.
Risks
Minors are particularly vulnerable when government authorities act on signs of radicalisation and restrict their fundamental rights. Their age and the stage of their development also make them particularly susceptible to radicalisation.
Interventions by government authorities in response to signs of radicalisation can infringe on a number of children’s rights and human rights, such as freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression, the right to family life, freedom of movement, personal freedom and the prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment.
International children’s rights and international human rights stress not only the protection of minors from state intervention, but also the need to protect the security of society and the welfare of minors from the risks of radicalisation.
Recommendations
In her PhD thesis, Nina van Capelleveen calls for a more youth-specific approach to radicalisation, viewing radicalisation in minors from a care or development perspective. She also recommends greater clarity and uniformity at the national level regarding the definition of the term ‘radicalisation’. The various interpretations of this concept currently lead to vast differences as to the signs and the minors that are covered by the approach to radicalisation. In doing so, she recommends a decision-making framework for national decision-makers (the Public Prosecution Service, Child Care and Protection Board and NCTV) to deploy legal instruments in tackling radicalisation that comply with children’s rights.
Illustration: Unsplash+